On 3/5/14, 2:58 AM, "Johannes Renner" <jren...@suse.de> wrote:
>On 03/05/2014 08:04 AM, Lamont Peterson wrote: >> On 3/4/14, 12:31 AM, "Silvio Moioli" <smoi...@suse.de> wrote: >> >>>> From: Paul Robert Marino <prmari...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:prmari...@gmail.com>> >>>> I think we need a map of what these shared file and functions effect >>>>so >>>> we can do more formal QA testing in the future >>> >>> On 03/03/2014 08:09 PM, Lamont Peterson wrote: >>>> Agreed. >>> >>> Unfortunately I think such a "map", if ever existed, would be far too >>> complex to be of any practical value. Consider this image, which "maps" >>> only database tables, a relatively small fraction of the total software >>> complexity: >>> >>> http://turing.suse.de/~smoioli/relationships.real.compact.png >>> >>> Developers already have tools in modern IDEs such as Eclipse to check >>> for (partial) call trees[1], and are expected to use them. I do not >>> think we can do much more than that in this regard, of course new >>> opinions are welcome :-) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> [1] http://eclipse-tools.sourceforge.net/call-hierarchy/usage.html >>> -- >>> Silvio Moioli >>> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH >>> Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg Germany >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Spacewalk-devel mailing list >>> Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel >>> >> >> You’re right (and thanks for the vivid DB relationships diagram). In my >> mind, the auto-generated map should simply be a calling-me list: >> >> Function A is called by: >> file.java : 45 >> file2.java : 134 >> >> That’s for developers. The map for QA could be simpler and generated >>from >> merely stuff one can hit “submit” on? > >Hey, > >I agree with Silvio: as a developer I don't need such a map. It would be >much >harder to lookup something on this map instead of just using the features >of >my IDE that were made for that purpose (like e.g. "References", >"Declarations" >or "Type Hierarchy" in Eclipse). > >Further note that there are relations in the codebase that are hard to >figure >out using automatic tooling. I therefore personally prefer to use the >very good >search features in IDEs to maintaining some automatic tools that need to >have a >lot of knowledge in order to find relationships. Think of e.g. translation >strings, jsp files, struts-config.xml, form validation *.xsd files, >*.hbm.xml >files or dwr.xml. > >Regards, >Johannes Hi, Johannes, I agree with you both on this; as a developer, the IDE tools are a great way to accomplish this. Especially for those already familiar with some portion of the architecture. However, for the QA folks, something simpler, without them resorting to grok’ing code, could be quite useful. We have lots of automated testing, and that’s good, but a QA group needs good info to base regression testing on. Wouldn’t that part of this (odd) thread be useful as we strive to improve future process for projects such as this? Hey, I’m not a known contributor around here (yet); I’m just spitballing. -- Lamont Peterson Sr. Systems Administrator | Unix Systems Operations Intermountain Healthcare Office: 801.442.6497 | lamont.peter...@imail.org _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
